jimib saidWhite gay men were noticeably absent from the actual uprising. Only those who couldn't "pass" as straight risked their lives. 70-90% were blacks, Latinos, flamboyant, drag queens.

Please show us evidence of that.

I've searched the internet for pictures of that night and of the immediate time period and what the pictures show doesn't seem to correlate to what you've just said.

Miss Major Griffin-Gracie, a black trans woman present at the time of the riots, remembers that it was actually cisgender people in the minority that night. “I’m sorry, but the last time I checked, the only gay people I saw hanging around [the Stonewall] were across the street cheering. They were not the ones getting slugged or having stones thrown at them,” she said. “It’s just aggravating. And hurtful! For all the girls who are no longer here who can’t say anything, this movie just acts like they didn’t exist.”

jimib saidWhite gay men were noticeably absent from the actual uprising. Only those who couldn't "pass" as straight risked their lives. 70-90% were blacks, Latinos, flamboyant, drag queens.

Please show us evidence of that.

I've searched the internet for pictures of that night and of the immediate time period and what the pictures show doesn't seem to correlate to what you've just said.

Miss Major Griffin-Gracie, a black trans woman present at the time of the riots, remembers that it was actually cisgender people in the minority that night. “I’m sorry, but the last time I checked, the only gay people I saw hanging around [the Stonewall] were across the street cheering. They were not the ones getting slugged or having stones thrown at them,” she said. “It’s just aggravating. And hurtful! For all the girls who are no longer here who can’t say anything, this movie just acts like they didn’t exist.”

So you've got hearsay?

For me, I've learned from my own life that history changes. Whether we learn new facts about the past, or whether we consider relating things that we hadn't before, or how something plays contextually or how might be interpreted by whatever might be the vernacular of that later day, history is not static. Even what we thought might have been is subject to change.

That doesn't mean you change things beyond the facts, but what if new facts come to light. What if old facts turn out to be untrue or overplayed? Somethings remain. Stonewall remains. We can step upon Stonewall and have a look around at how far we've come since then.

What of the details? The trans community has been given that torch to carry through all these years, and through these years, our teens there, be they our teens dressed in drag, be that our black teens or latin teens or suburban white teens, our teens were there. We know this. They had no other place to be.

I never knew the exact story having heard so many differing tales and frankly I played the trans one myself but really just because I thought it camp. I thought it gay. That a guy in dress would brick a cop. I love that. Truly. But our teens who were there, and there are stories of them, they are still killing themselves and they are still being thrown from their family homes and they are still living on the street and they still need a place like Stonewall to call home.

Whoever you are hidden person, I can cite enough references to document my assertions. So don't you worry about that.

Perhaps history changes. It would be more accurate to suggest that one's memory of historical events change. I'm not going to argue that. But consider this. Let's say that a movie was announced called "The Black Panthers". Let's say Christensen Hayden was cast as Huey P. Newton, Zachery Quito as Bobby Seale and Christina Ricci as Angela Davis. Would you say of such a movie "history changes"?

The oral histories I've read of that time largely say that the riot started when police attacked some drag queens, who fought back. Some claim emotions had been running high because of the sudden death of Judy Garland shortly before.

But I wasn't there to verify that. Ironically I was just a few blocks away, 20 at the time, shopping in preparation for my voluntary Army induction a few days later. NYC is a big place, and major events can happen in one place that aren't telegraphed all over the City. At least not then.

And so it wasn't until I arrived home that night I began to see TV news reports. But still not very alarming, passing mention about an isolated neighborhood disturbance. Next morning's New York Daily News had front page pictures, and it snowballed from there.

I was bemused I had been so close to it and yet knew nothing about it. But my focus was elsewhere, and I soon dropped it from my mind. Now, of course, it's recognized as one of the defining moments of the 20th Century, and the beginning of the modern gay rights movement. I wonder if much of history isn't like that?

jimib saidWhoever you are hidden person, I can cite enough references to document my assertions. So don't you worry about that.

Perhaps history changes. It would be more accurate to suggest that one's memory of historical events change. I'm not going to argue that. But consider this. Let's say that a movie was announced called "The Black Panthers". Let's say Christensen Hayden was cast as Huey P. Newton, Zachery Quito as Bobby Seale and Christina Ricci as Angela Davis. Would you say of such a movie "history changes"?

Whoever you are person with picture (+ I'll presume profile too?) sorry, but I don't follow the movies. So I have no idea what people you are talking about and I haven't studied black history since school back in the 80s when I remember loving the works of Malcolm X who happens to be buried in the same cemetery as a relative of mine, so I could leave flowers if you'd like. Davis? Isn't she that nice Jewish girl from Brandeis? We can get Streisand and do Black Panthers, The Musical.

So I presume by context not content that you are suggesting I'm saying that people play the part who were not of the part but while that might be the case there in your analogy, as far as I've heard and read also from numerous sources, that seems not the case here in actuality.

Tim Stewart-Winter, who studies the history of gay movements at Rutgers University, says it's actually unclear who started the Stonewall riots. "We don't know who threw the first brick just because no one knew at the time that this would be an event of world historical importance," he explains. "It was late at night; it was a murky situation."

Still, he says criticism of the new film's interpretation is rooted in divisions within the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community....

...A broad coalition of LGBT activists ultimately formed the gay liberation movement that emerged from Stonewall. But Stewart-Winter adds that perhaps the most important driving force against the police during the riots were young street kids and older, self-described drag queens like Stonewall veteran Martin Boyce, who served as a consultant for the new film.

So no, I'm not suggesting that the air be knocked out of history. I'm suggesting history be allowed to breathe.

jimib saidWhite gay men were noticeably absent from the actual uprising. Only those who couldn't "pass" as straight risked their lives. 70-90% were blacks, Latinos, flamboyant, drag queens.

Please show us evidence of that.

I've searched the internet for pictures of that night and of the immediate time period and what the pictures show doesn't seem to correlate to what you've just said.

Miss Major Griffin-Gracie, a black trans woman present at the time of the riots, remembers that it was actually cisgender people in the minority that night. “I’m sorry, but the last time I checked, the only gay people I saw hanging around [the Stonewall] were across the street cheering. They were not the ones getting slugged or having stones thrown at them,” she said. “It’s just aggravating. And hurtful! For all the girls who are no longer here who can’t say anything, this movie just acts like they didn’t exist.”

So you've got hearsay?

For me, I've learned from my own life that history changes. Whether we learn new facts about the past, or whether we consider relating things that we hadn't before, or how something plays contextually or how might be interpreted by whatever might be the vernacular of that later day, history is not static. Even what we thought might have been is subject to change.

That doesn't mean you change things beyond the facts, but what if new facts come to light. What if old facts turn out to be untrue or overplayed? Somethings remain. Stonewall remains. We can step upon Stonewall and have a look around at how far we've come since then.

What of the details? The trans community has been given that torch to carry through all these years, and through these years, our teens there, be they our teens dressed in drag, be that our black teens or latin teens or suburban white teens, our teens were there. We know this. They had no other place to be.

I never knew the exact story having heard so many differing tales and frankly I played the trans one myself but really just because I thought it camp. I thought it gay. That a guy in dress would brick a cop. I love that. Truly. But our teens who were there, and there are stories of them, they are still killing themselves and they are still being thrown from their family homes and they are still living on the street and they still need a place like Stonewall to call home.

Would it hurt to pass that torch?

If I wanted to, I could present 100 sources saying that the holocaust didn't occur. Those 100 sources still wouldn't change the fact that the holocaust did occur. Marsha P. Johnson, a black drag queen is considered the person who threw the first brick on the night of the Stonewall Riots. (Carter, David (2004). Stonewall: The Riots that Sparked the Gay Revolution. St. Martin's; Feinberg, Leslie (1996). Transgender Warriors: Making History from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman) Even if she were not the actual fist thrower, the first thrower was most definitely not a straight white high school student from Indiana.

jimib saidWhoever you are hidden person, I can cite enough references to document my assertions. So don't you worry about that.

Perhaps history changes. It would be more accurate to suggest that one's memory of historical events change. I'm not going to argue that. But consider this. Let's say that a movie was announced called "The Black Panthers". Let's say Christensen Hayden was cast as Huey P. Newton, Zachery Quito as Bobby Seale and Christina Ricci as Angela Davis. Would you say of such a movie "history changes"?

Bro, too many of the people in here prefer a life of "white tunnelvision".

Even if INSIDE they acknowledge what you share, they seem to LOATHE revealing it for fear that they "lose stature" in some way.

jimib saidWhite gay men were noticeably absent from the actual uprising. Only those who couldn't "pass" as straight risked their lives. 70-90% were blacks, Latinos, flamboyant, drag queens.

Please show us evidence of that.

I've searched the internet for pictures of that night and of the immediate time period and what the pictures show doesn't seem to correlate to what you've just said.

Miss Major Griffin-Gracie, a black trans woman present at the time of the riots, remembers that it was actually cisgender people in the minority that night. “I’m sorry, but the last time I checked, the only gay people I saw hanging around [the Stonewall] were across the street cheering. They were not the ones getting slugged or having stones thrown at them,” she said. “It’s just aggravating. And hurtful! For all the girls who are no longer here who can’t say anything, this movie just acts like they didn’t exist.”

So you've got hearsay?

For me, I've learned from my own life that history changes. Whether we learn new facts about the past, or whether we consider relating things that we hadn't before, or how something plays contextually or how might be interpreted by whatever might be the vernacular of that later day, history is not static. Even what we thought might have been is subject to change.

That doesn't mean you change things beyond the facts, but what if new facts come to light. What if old facts turn out to be untrue or overplayed? Somethings remain. Stonewall remains. We can step upon Stonewall and have a look around at how far we've come since then.

What of the details? The trans community has been given that torch to carry through all these years, and through these years, our teens there, be they our teens dressed in drag, be that our black teens or latin teens or suburban white teens, our teens were there. We know this. They had no other place to be.

I never knew the exact story having heard so many differing tales and frankly I played the trans one myself but really just because I thought it camp. I thought it gay. That a guy in dress would brick a cop. I love that. Truly. But our teens who were there, and there are stories of them, they are still killing themselves and they are still being thrown from their family homes and they are still living on the street and they still need a place like Stonewall to call home.

Would it hurt to pass that torch?

You are romanticizing a "gay" pub?

I was not at Stonewall, but I was "out and about" in Boston and NY in 1974. I recall the social conditions of those times compared to now. I also recall the quotas and "dress code" restrictions at too many "gay" pubs that would not let me enter.

When I moved to L.A. in 1978, I met older "gay" (white) men who had been at Stonewall...in fact, used to go there with some regularity. It was they who told me that the pub had a race/skin hue quota system. I was informed that this practice was "just a reflection of those times". They also told me that there was ALWAYS tension in "gay" pubs because of vice cops. Patrons only talked to people they knew. If you wanted to go there, you had to be vouched for and introduced around by someone who was already known. Few people touched, let alone kissed/carried on. The vice could strike at any time.

FitBlackCuddler saidThey also told me that there was ALWAYS tension in "gay" pubs because of vice cops. Patrons only talked to people they knew. If you wanted to go there, you had to be vouched for and introduced around by someone who was already known. Few people touched, let alone kissed/carried on. The vice could strike at any time.

These are the same stories I hear from Boston gays, who lived there in the 1950s. First of all the clubs were mostly Mafia owned, and were White only. Including some clubs in Provincetown on Cape Cod.

Second, police raids happened, but not too frequently, with the clubs & bars never shut down permanently, because the Mob was paying off the cops. The periodic raids and temporary closings were just to satisfy the public, and sometimes because the police wanted a "raise" or were making some other point.

Most clubs had long entrances, often with stairs going down to a basement or upstairs. People didn't enter directly from the sidewalk, giving the patrons & staff some early warning when a "break-in" raid was happening.

Some clubs had a warning sign the staff used, a particular light being switched on or some other signal, when they suspected an undercover cop was in the place. Men would dance with each other if they thought things were "all clear", but if they got the danger signal or heard the commotion of a raid they'd begin dancing or sitting with a woman.

A woman they knew and had possibly brought with them. The original fag hags, or maybe a lesbian friend (some from that era have told me the same stories). That way when the police asked the couple if they knew each other's names and other stuff the gay men would have a strong story, the police having no evidence unless they actually saw 2 guys doing something illegal together.

Incidentally if the police did arrest the men they usually left the women alone. Those arrested weren't always booked, but beaten up once they were taken outside and then released. Or beaten up and then booked, as well, on various morals and public indecency charges. At least that was the pattern in Boston back then.

What if the movie portrayed a black teen throwing the brick? The brick, as if that's our flag.

I think some people are making a race issue where there is none. Highly unusual on RJ. Even if they used a white kid to sell a movie, so what: it's a fiction. The point that ought to be taken is the up till now unacknowledged involvement of our homeless kids, who are still homeless and at risk by the way.

What is more important, the utility of an idea or its aesthetics?

What do we know for certain? We know both groups were there. What else do we know for certain? That one of those groups has not yet been recognized. And which version benefits community most, keeping focus where it has been or expanding the view, that kids thrown from their homes for being gay, living on the streets unattended by even their own community, that they might now be seen?

How do I view our history? Here's how it played out and I know for certain because I wasn't there...

The cops raided yet again. One got sassy with a drag queen. She got fed up and swung her purse, not in riotous retaliation but more campy-like, making fun of it under the stress of the raid. The cop got rough. A homeless teen piled on his ass for roughing up his older trans friend.

Who threw the first brick? Oh, that was society. It was a cop hitting himself over the head with that brick.

And that's how I'll continue to remember it, both the black & white and the colorized version.Hello history, is this the party to whom I am speaking?